Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
the national institutes of health where you are hindering growth you are not delegate t going te deficit. we need more revenue and more cuts. i would like to see that in a big balanced bold proposal. short of that, we must do something to avoid the sequester. >> chris: here is what house speaker boehner said this week. >> at some point, washington, has to deal with its spending problem. i have watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years that i have been here. i have had enough of it. it's time to act. >> chris: congress woman, let's look at the numbers. are you really saying in a government that spends $3.5 trillion a year increased discretionary spending by 14% in the last four years you can't $85 billion to cut to avoid the sequester. >> we have made the cut in terms of agriculture subsidies. there are tens of billions of dollars in cuts there. and that should be balanced with eliminating subsidies for big oil. why should we lower pell grants instead of eliminating the subsidies for big oil? >> chris: why not just cut spending. 85 billion north dakota a $3.5 trillion government.
are no going to reduce the deficit. so, what we do need is more revenue, and more cuts, but i would like to see that a big, balanced, bold proposal. and short of that, we must do something to avoid the sequester. >> chris: here's what house speaker boehner said this week: >> at some point washington has to deal with its spending problem. i watched them kick the can down though road for 22 years i have been here and i have had enough of it. >> chris: congresswoman, let's look at this numbers. are you really saying in you a government that spends $3.5 trillion a year, that increased federal discretionary spending by 14%, over the last four years, you can't find 8 8 -- $85 billion to cut, to avoid sequester. >> we have cut agriculture subsidy, tense of billions of dollars in cuts there and that should be balanced with eliminating subsidy for big oil. why should we do -- why should we lower pel grants instead of eliminating the subsidies for big oil. >> chris: why not just cut spending, $85 billion in a $3.5 trillion government. >> let's back up from -- with all due respect to the speaker, what he
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)